I would have to assume they’re obeying their own laws. Why would you have thought otherwise? Oh, you mean YOUR laws …

There is a long list of distinguished nations who are lined up to visit. Cuba, Iran, Venezuela…

Well, we once asked such a distinguished visitor to join us on ISS. I’m sure lots more countries would line up to visit the Chinese space station as well, though Frank Wolf would see to it that they never again set foot on ISS.

“What is depressing…”

In FACT, what is ‘depressing’ is Space X pedding sub-standard performance in the marketplace and trying to dfsmiss it. They’d be wiser to hang a lantern on it and make noise about fixing the problem, especially as they plan to try to fly crews on top of their bird. This is business. OC might accept sub-standard performance, and that’s a managerial decision by that firm, but NASA shouldn’t so easily accept it with taxpayer dollars involved and in the future, potentially, the lives of crews on the line, especially given their managerial history w/Challenger and Columbia.- and even Apollo 1. You want to hold contractor Space X to high standards, especially if they ever try to fly crewed spacecraft w/NASA personnel on board. If Space X carried a NASA crew and lost them, the public will blame NASA for not properlty vetting the contractor, not the contractor, Space X. Back in ’67, NA didn’t take the nearly the level of public heat NASA did. In ’86 Thiokol didn’t take the bulk of the public heat for a flawed SRB design, NASA did. And it was NASA managemnt that was rightly slammed for Columbla. No sir, if Space X is going to try to fly crews on top of Falcons, their QA has to improve. But then, QA is always a place to cut corners– and costs- in the profit-driven private sector, isn’t it. .

“Sorry but it looks like SpaceX is going to weather this ORBCOMM sat delivery issue without much problem.”

Depends on the sweetener offered up.. “OrbComm issued a press release on Monday that they planned to continue to use SpaceX.” Would be interesting to know the details of the make good; a one off or contracting amendment which could set precedent for future contracts- Savvy business practice would be to offer some kind of make good or future discount. No ‘refunds’ of course. LOL

“Not only the customers and insurers weren’t pleased, President Reagan signed an executive order banning NASA from performing further commercial launches.” ;That was a result of the Challenger loss, not the Palapa/Westar mission.’

Correct. Heinrich should have known that. Naturally, you would. Butn then, even a broken clock is ‘right’ twice a day, isn’t it.

“it is clear that the vast majority of anti’s have never really been a part of an engineering effort ”

Sober up. This is a business transaction; a mater of commerice. It is not an exercise in experimental ‘enginerring efforts.’ You don’t go to Hertz and rent experimental cars; you lease a proven product to provide goods and services. The excuse makers for Space X are desperatly trying to cloak their marketplace failures and sub-standard perflrmance as engineering growing pains when, in FACT, they’ve brought to market a flawed product- hence, let the buyer beware, be it OC or NASA.

Which, to state the obvious, presumably means that the GNC system will have that as its main objective and will fly any engine-out profile accordingly. Whatever the secondary payloads are will get secondary consideration, like OG2 did on this flight.

The Orbcomm issue is nothing…those folks knew what they were buying…”

Nonsense. In FACT,. OC entered into a business contract for specified services and Space X failed to deliver as agreed. Blaming the customer for sub-standard services by the contractor is a pretty poor business strategy. If FedEx used your rationale, the USPS would be booming. But if you want to makes excuses for Space X’s failure to deliver its contracted services for OC, go for it: Here’s your new sales slogan:: “Space X. When it absolutely, positively maybe, might not get there.”

“But if you want ot make excuses for sub-standard service by Space X, go ahead.”

What alternate reality are you in? All the press is talking about is the successful berthing of the Dragon and the early hatch opening. So are the primary mission has been a complete success.

Secondary payloads are important for their owners, but they knew they were the secondary payload when they signed up for the launch. Their Monte Carlo simulations would have told them there was a chance of not attaining the preferred orbit, and they weighed the risks and rewards. You do the same thing every time you board a small aircraft and even a large commercial one.

The lesson learned here is that SpaceX has built a robust transportation system that can deal with imperfection. The Shuttle did not always fail so gracefully from an engine failure, yet it was “human rated” – so much for consistent standards…

“If by anti-Chinese you mean opposed to the lawless Chicom mafia that plagues the Chinese mainland, then yes, guilty as charged.”

Did you recently check where your electronics, sneakers and otherwise everyday stuff was made from? I am sure as a good patriot you only buy things Made in the good old US of A and further that you send them back to the company whenever you find out it’s made in China or from a chinese corporation. I also assume you absolutely oppose corporations and enterprises making a lot of deals with China thereby increasing their stock values? Right? You don’t deal with such corporations on the stock market? You would not be a hypocrite right?

Whatever…

“actually for the Orbcomm satellites I think reentry is fairly easy…they burn up”

I believe he was referring to the CRS mission, not OrbComm